ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal noted that the Learned Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue submitted that he had wrongly filed two appeals on the same grounds and wished to withdraw the present appeal as another appeal on the same grounds was pending before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee had no objection to this request. Consequently, in view of the request made by the Learned DR, the present appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of the grounds raised. No specific finding was given on any of the issues, and no ratio decidendi was established. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated for verification of purchases, but no additions were ultimately made by the lower authorities on this ground. Relying on the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories v. CIT, the Tribunal quashed the impugned reopening.

The Tribunal noted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated for verification of purchases, but no additions were ultimately made by the lower authorities on this ground. Relying on the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories v. CIT, the Tribunal quashed the impugned reopening.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities rightly assessed the assessee by treating credits of Rs. 65,31,372/- as business turnover at 8%. No merit was found in the substantive grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the intimations under Section 143(1) were issued before the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services, and the issue was highly debatable at that time, the disallowance should not have been made under Section 143(1).

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act is applicable to resident investors and not to non-resident investors, and the primary investments were made by a non-resident holding company. Therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) were erroneously invoked. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the prior approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was obtained from an authority not specified for the relevant period, thus violating Section 151 of the Act.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the additional ground for deduction under Section 80IA(4). The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to comply with the mandatory conditions prescribed in Section 80A(5) of the Act, which requires claims to be made in the return of income.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without validly assuming jurisdiction under Section 127(2) of the Act, rendering it liable to be quashed. The appeal was decided on this technical ground.

The Tribunal held that the source of the loan amounting to Rs. 3,02,500 was fully explained by the cash flow statement, bank accounts, affidavits from the lenders, and the explanation that the loan was taken in cash and repaid in cash. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the intimations under Section 143(1) were issued before the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services, and the issue was highly debatable at that time, the disallowance should not have been made under Section 143(1).

The tribunal held that the Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was vitiated because it was based on a 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Assessing Officer's proposal, rather than an independent application of mind and examination of records. The tribunal quashed the Section 263 order.

The Tribunal held that the approval for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 was taken from the Pr. CIT, whereas it should have been from the PCCIT as per Section 151(ii), especially since the notice was issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Bombay High Court in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is an accretion to the value and part of enhanced compensation, following Supreme Court decisions. The PCIT's order, based solely on an audit objection and overlooking Supreme Court rulings, was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 8,79,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had suo-motto filed a return declaring income and paid taxes. While the AO treated the cash deposits as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, the CIT(A) seemingly converted this to unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal found that the wife's affidavit, explaining the source of the cash deposits as her income from vocational singing classes, was not controverted by the AO through cross-examination or contrary evidence. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mehta Parikh & Co., the Tribunal held that an uncontroverted affidavit should not be ignored. Given that the source of the cash deposits was explained as the wife's income and no contrary material was brought on record, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. Both grounds of appeal concerning the addition were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were invalid as they were completed against a non-existent entity. The AO proceeded to complete the assessment despite being informed of the merger and provided with the relevant court order.

The Tribunal held that it is too early to infer a commercial nature of the activity, as the assessee has taken substantial steps towards developing the infrastructure for the old age home. The conclusions drawn by the CIT(E) were not sustained, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal directed the assessing authority to assess the impugned cash deposits at a profit rate of 10%, amounting to Rs. 1.4 lakh, considering it as business receipts. The Tribunal also clarified that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.

The Tribunal held that it is too early to infer a commercial nature of the activity, as the assessee has taken substantial steps towards developing the infrastructure for the old age home. The conclusions drawn by the CIT(E) were not sustained, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

The ITAT held that the assessments framed by the AO in the name of a non-existent company were bad in law and quashed them. The tribunal distinguished the present case from precedents where the assessee had not disclosed the amalgamation.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were invalid as they were completed against a non-existent entity. The AO's action of proceeding with the assessment after being informed of the merger and provided with the High Court's order was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was illegal and unlawful because it ignored the fact that the appeal had been withdrawn and a revision order under Section 264 had been passed, effectively making the assessment order cease to exist. The CIT(A) wrongly alleged fraud by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It was found that the CIT(A) had decided the issue ex parte without proper adjudication. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the development fee is meant for capital assets and not revenue in nature, following its previous decisions.

The Tribunal found that the facts and modus operandi of the assessee were not properly appreciated. The case was restored to the AO for a fresh adjudication to determine the exact margin and business income.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal as the appeal had become infructuous. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee, considering them to be jurisdictional issues. However, regarding the validity of the approval under section 153D, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's plea. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not cooperated in the assessment proceedings, and a non-cooperative assessee cannot raise technical pleas as an escape route. The Tribunal agreed with the revenue that the plea taken at this stage should be rejected. Nevertheless, observing that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without a proper opportunity for the assessee and that the CIT(A) affirmed the Assessing Officer's action, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided that the matter required a de novo assessment. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessees were directed to fully cooperate with the Assessing Officer. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the assessee's valuation report, as the assessee had the option to choose the valuation method (DCF) as per Rule 11UA. The AO did not provide an alternative valuation report and relied on assumptions. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the CIT(E), the assessee filed only partial submissions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(E). However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had dismissed the appeal without considering the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue as per facts and law. The assessee was also directed to appear before the CIT(E) and cooperate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application without considering the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim.

The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the CIT(E), the assessee did not file its submissions before the authority. Consequently, the application for registration was dismissed for non-compliance by the CIT(E). Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(E). A direction was given to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue as per facts and law. The assessee was also directed to appear before the CIT(E) and cooperate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that payments for professional services rendered by foreign lawyers outside India are not chargeable to tax in India and therefore, no TDS was required under Section 195. The distinction between professional services and FTS is statutorily recognized.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with virtual hearings, and noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking and non-reasoned order, confirming additions without applying his mind to the detailed submissions made by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had merely reproduced the assessment order and the assessee's submissions, dismissing the appeal without addressing the merits of the issues raised. Specifically, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to verify an addition of INR 20,07,50,000/- for which no discussion was made in the assessment order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to his file with directions to decide each ground of appeal by a speaking order, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground of appeal No.11, which raised the issue of the non-speaking order, was partly allowed for statistical purposes. Since this ground was partly allowed and the matter was remanded, the other grounds of appeal were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee, considering them to be jurisdictional issues. However, regarding the validity of the approval under section 153D, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's plea. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not cooperated in the assessment proceedings, and a non-cooperative assessee cannot raise technical pleas as an escape route. The Tribunal agreed with the revenue that the plea taken at this stage should be rejected. Nevertheless, observing that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without a proper opportunity for the assessee and that the CIT(A) affirmed the Assessing Officer's action, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided that the matter required a de novo assessment. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessees were directed to fully cooperate with the Assessing Officer. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee, considering them to be jurisdictional issues. However, regarding the validity of the approval under section 153D, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's plea. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not cooperated in the assessment proceedings, and a non-cooperative assessee cannot raise technical pleas as an escape route. The Tribunal agreed with the revenue that the plea taken at this stage should be rejected. Nevertheless, observing that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without a proper opportunity for the assessee and that the CIT(A) affirmed the Assessing Officer's action, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided that the matter required a de novo assessment. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessees were directed to fully cooperate with the Assessing Officer. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity are void ab initio and bad in law. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from precedents where the merged entity participated in proceedings, emphasizing that in this case, the notices were issued to a company that no longer existed.

The Tribunal held that payments for professional services rendered by foreign lawyers outside India are not taxable in India and therefore, TDS under Section 195 was not required. The distinction between professional and technical services was emphasized.

The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a possible view and had verified the information provided by the assessee. The PCIT, in revision, was not satisfied and sought to take another view. The Tribunal found that the issues raised by the PCIT were not acceptable and directed the AO to redo the verification. The Tribunal quashed the revision order and held that the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order on the merits of the case. Therefore, the issues in dispute were remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision on merits after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the investment was made by her husband and that neither the Form 26AS nor bank statements were submitted. Due to the lack of verifiable documents and to ensure natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Since the CIT(A) had not discussed the issues on merits, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte order and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication with directions to consider all evidence and provide an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was defective because it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was being invoked (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the additional grounds raised by the Revenue required factual verification and examination of documents not part of the original assessment or first appellate proceedings. Therefore, these grounds could not be admitted at the second appellate stage.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the larger interest of justice, acknowledging potential communication gaps due to virtual hearings. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the prescribed authority's approval under Section 35(2AB) pertains to the R&D facility, not the quantum of expenditure. The disallowance of R&D expenditure was partly allowed. The claim regarding DDT was dismissed, while the interest under Section 234C was allowed for statistical purposes.

The tribunal, relying on judicial precedents, ruled that an assessment order cannot be validly passed against a non-existent company. The Assessing Officer's action of proceeding with assessment after being informed of the company's dissolution rendered the assessment order without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The appropriate course of action for the department was to approach the NCLT for revival of the company.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, particularly in unabated assessment years where no incriminating material was found during the search. Additions based on 'dumb documents' or mere presumptions were also dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, particularly in unabated assessment years where no incriminating material was found during the search. Additions based on 'dumb documents' or mere presumptions were also dismissed.